Do you really think the Civil War wasn't about slavery?

Yes and no. From the elite Southern standpoint it clearly was, as you demonstrated. However as people usually do you focused soloely on one aspect of the Civil War--in fact, just one PERSON. Most people who fought for both the North and South didn't fight specifically for slavery, they fought for adventure, the pay, etc. There were more than a few Northern soldiers who immediately went home and refused to fight once they heard Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. The North really fought to save the Union more than to end slavery.

Without slavery the Southern elites probably wouldn't have called for secession (without which the war would've never taken place), so you could say "yes" to your question and not exactly be wrong, but it wouldn't be telling the whole story either.

Your modified question is better. I can't disagree with that. That's why I'd say slavery was the main cause of the Civil War, not really what it was about. That question is really too in-depth to be answered on a site like this. You could write a whole book on that topic, and many people have.

More about $. Slavery was a losing proposition for most southerners, and only included in the speech to extract money from them. This is also from the speech;

We have stretched out lines of railroads from the seaboard to the mountains; dug down the hills, and filled up the valleys at a cost of not less than $25,000,000. All this was done to open an outlet for our products of the interior, and those to the west of us, to reach the marts of the world. No State was in greater need of such facilities than Georgia, but we did not ask that these works should be made by appropriations out of the common treasury. The cost of the grading, the superstructure, and the equipment of our roads was borne by those who had entered into the enterprise. Nay, more not only the cost of the iron no small item in the aggregate cost was borne in the same way, but we were compelled to pay into the common treasury several millions of dollars for the privilege of importing the iron, after the price was paid for it abroad. What justice was there in taking this money, which our people paid into the common treasury on the importation of our iron, and applying it to the improvement of rivers and harbors elsewhere?

Keep reading, the history is like most conflicts, power and money.

The war was fought because the Confederate states felt they had a right to leave the Union, a belief that actually a lot of Northerners felt they had a right to do as well. Slavery was only one issue the North and South were at odds over.

(Believe me, I'm sorry the first slave was ever even brought to our shores. We wouldn't have half the problems facing us today if we had never inherited the slave system from England.)

Your voicing your opinion on the Vice President of the side who lost? You got it upside down. History is written by the winners, not the losers. Also, the Civil War was about state rights. Slavery was a popular issue but the Emancipation was used more as weapon on the South's economy than the public school system will lead you to believe.

Most men who fought for the south did not own slaes. They fought for their homelans (the states they lived in) If the civil war was about slavery, what took lincoln so long to issue the emancipation proclamation and why weren't slaves in the north freed untill the 16th amendment was passed. Talk about hypocrites. The South was invaded by Yankess so that the rich New England weavers could get their hands on the cotton in the South. Lincoln was a sell out to the vested interests and corporations. He was a tyrant, a bloody tyrant and John Wilkes Booth was a hero for taking him out.

So what you are implying is that one man has decided the opinion for the entire confederacy? So could the same be said about the Al Sharpton and the entire Democrat party? You need to widen your stance. Such a narrow stance is easy to defeat. A gentle nudge and you go down. Continue reading. Don't stop with one history book. Remember that history books are an interpretation by a individuals who may or may not have an agenda. Would you read a history book about the holocaust written by Ack Madinejad? It seems kind of silly doesn't it? The same applies here.

The Civil War, like every war, was about something a little different in the heart of each person who lived through it. So that argument can't be won one way or another. But interesting link, thanks.

##

While I agree that it was the cause of the war, I think I understand what they're saying, that it wasn't just about whether slavery was right or wrong (Lincoln was a pretty overt racist). The whole economy of the South was based on the free labor of slavery, and they were threatened by the expansion of new territories. The new territories would be the "free soil" territories.

I'm sure all these apologists who say that was just one speech by one person blah, blah, blah are the same ones who will take some obscure statement made by Obama or one of his followers several years ago out of context to prove that Democrats are socialists, Obama was born in Kenya is a Musllim, or whatever.

The war wasn't about slavery according to Lincoln: "If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."